Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and

demolition waste disposal using system dynamics
Mohamed Marzouk , Shimaa Azab
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 March 2013
Received in revised form 8 September 2013
Accepted 27 October 2013
Keywords:
Construction and demolition wastes (CDW)
Environmental and economic impact
assessment
Pollutant emissions
Waste recycling
Global warming potential (GWP)
System dynamics modeling

a b s t r a c t
Construction and demolition wastes (CDW) have increasingly serious problems in environmental, social,
and economic realms. There is no coherent framework for utilization of these wastes which are disposed
both legally and illegally. This harms the environment, contributes to the increase of energy consumption,
and depletes nite landlls resources. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impacts of two alternatives
for the management of CDW, recycling and disposing. The evaluation is carried out through developing
a dynamic model with aid STELLA software by conducting the following steps: (1) quantifying the total
cost incurred to mitigate the impacts of CDW landlls and uncollected waste on the environment and
human health; (2) quantifying the total avoided emissions and saved energy by recycling waste; (3)
estimating total external cost saved by recycling waste and; (4) providing a decision support tool that
helps in re-thinking about waste disposal. The proposed evaluation methodology allows activating the
stringent regulations that restrict waste disposal and developing incentives to encourage constructors
to recycle their wastes. The research ndings show that recycling CDW leads to signicant reductions in
emissions, energy use, global warming potential (GWP), and conserves landlls space when compared
to disposal of wastes in landlls. Furthermore, the cost of mitigating the impact of disposal is extremely
high. Therefore, it is necessary to recycle construction and demolition wastes.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The construction/demolition industry is considered one of the
largest producers of solid wastes globally. The huge amount of construction and demolition wastes (CDW) has been generated from
increasing the building of new structures, renovation, rebuilding,
repair, demolition works, and infrastructure development projects.
Large quantities of construction and demolition wastes (CDW)
cause harmful effects on the environment if they are not managed
in proper manner. As such, these huge amounts of wastes need to
be properly managed. The current situation of waste management
in Egypt lies in disposed waste either legally or illegally and there
is no coherent framework for making the most of these wastes. It
is very important to give priority to the environment in addition to
conventional project objectives, such as cost, duration, quality and
safety (Liyin et al., 2006). Thinking about waste management from
a limited perspective gives rise to some economic concerns. This is
because a large amount of money is spent on dumping the waste in
landlls and mitigating the effects of dumping on the environment.
The environmental problems include: (1) diminishing landll space
due to incremental quantities of these disposed wastes in it; (2) the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +202 35678442.

E-mail address: mm marzouk@yahoo.com (M. Marzouk).
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015

depleted building materials; (3) the increase in contamination from

landlls that lead to serious negative health effects; (4) damage to
the environment; and (5) the increase in energy consumption for
transportation and manufacturing new materials instead of those
materials dumped and which require energy production. The later
problem is attributed to the loss of embodied energy of the disposed
wastes that can be used to produce new construction materials. It
is worth noting that CDW recycling saves the embodied energy in
waste materials by the replacement of virgin raw materials with
recycled materials (Roussat et al., 2009). Therefore, energy savings
are often the driving force behind emissions savings (Choate et al.,
2005).
CDW are adding to the phenomenon of global warming. Hotter temperatures due to Global Warming Potential (GWP) lead to
increased weather extremes including heat waves and worsening
of air quality. Epidemiological studies of deaths during the heat
waves refer to the fact that a substantial portion of the mortality might be attributed to elevated ozone and particulate levels
that occurred during the heat waves (American lung Association,
2004). The California Air Resources Board indicated that the health
effects of increasing concentrations of particulate matter and ozone
are: 6500 premature deaths, 4000 hospital admissions for respiratory disease, 3000 hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease,
350,000 asthma attacks, 2000 asthma-related emergency room
visits, elevated school absences due to respiratory conditions,

42

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

including asthma, and reduced lung function growth rate in children. Sensitive groups, including seniors, people with heart or lung
disease, children and infants are the most vulnerable to the harmful
effects of air pollution.
On the other hand, CDW recycling technique has recently
attracted the attention of many researchers due to its economic
and environmental benets. In economic terms, plenty of studies
have been conducted on the economic situation of CDW recycling
plants such as (Coelho and de Brito, 2013a; Zhao et al., 2010). Both
of these studies conrmed the economic feasibility of recycling
CDW, but with different results due to the conditions of each study.
Coelho and de Brito (2013a) conducted a study on a large-scale
recycling plant in Portugal to evaluate the economic viability of
the plant for serving a densely populated urban area. This study
concluded that despite the absence of regulatory government policy the initial investment required for recycling may be high, but
there is a high prot potential for CDW recycling with the return of
invested capital in around two years. Zhao et al. (2010) developed a
study of the situation in Chongqing in China to assess the economic
viability of the implementation of xed recycling CDW plant facilities and mobile recycling stations and compared it with recycling
centers (mobile stations) in the Netherlands to nd out successful
factors for recycling centers. This study has concluded that xed
and mobile recycling centers with used equipment have higher
economy viability than centers with new equipment and that is
due to their ability to achieve a higher prot margin in contrast to
the second case. Also, the revenue increases owing to the location
advantage (e.g. mobile stations) and the recycling cost decreases
with the economy of scale (e.g. xed centers). This study has also
suggested the use of economic and political instruments to face the
investment risks.
Regarding the environmental concerns from recycling plants,
several studies have been conducted to evaluate the environmental impacts from CDW recycling plants. Coelho and de Brito (2013b)
conducted a study using life cycle assessment of CDW recycling
plant with a capacity of 350 ton/h and 60-year operating lifespan.
This study has focused on the evaluation of two impacts of recycling
plant, namely the primary energy consumption and CO2 eq emissions. The main conclusion of this study is that recycled materials
always have signicant environmental benets where the avoided
impacts of CO2 eq emissions are always higher than the generated impacts and energy savings exceed the energy consumed
during the operating lifespan. F.I.R. (2005) pointed out for several studies conducted to assess the environmental impacts from
recycling building materials using life cycle assessment approach
from extraction to recovery or disposal of landlls. The rst study
is presented for assessing the greenhouse gases generated from
primary and recycled aggregate. The study has concluded that the
recycled aggregate was more environmentally useful than most
of primary aggregate. The second study is presented for evaluating environmental impacts of production of 1 ton of concrete
through comparing two different scenarios, which are landlling and recycling. According to this study, the second scenario
(recycling) is more environmentally friendly.
In order to overcome the above-listed growing problems caused
by CDW disposal, it is important to consider a recycling solution. Recycling allows utilizing wastes as raw materials in some
other ways. This paper proposes the use of system dynamics
methodology to compare between two alternatives of CDW management techniques; recycling and landll disposal. This model
is capable of: (1) measuring the total emissions from the CDW
landlling and associated costs incurred to mitigate the impacts
from these emissions; (2) predicting the total damage costs of disposed waste and from uncollected wastes; and (3) quantifying the
total avoided emissions and the energy saved by waste recycling.
The novelty of this research lies in adopting a system dynamics

approach for all basic variables underlying the evaluation of the

two alternatives during the lifetime of landlls. It outperforms previous studies which focus on assessing the two alternatives without
taking into account the dynamic nature and relationships between
variables.
Plenty of studies have been carried out to model CDW management using system dynamics, but they did not take into account the
dynamic nature of the CDW disposal and interactions among major
variables affecting on evaluation of economic and environmental
effects of the CDW disposal as two important aspects of sustainability. This research is an attempt to provide the stakeholders of
Egyptian construction sector with an empirical study that considers all variables that inuence the CDW. Also, this study helps in
mitigating the risks associated with CDW disposal and illustrates
the benets of recycling of construction wastes.
2. Theory and calculations
System dynamics is an approach for studying and managing
complex feedback systems and is specially created to deal with
large-scale and complex systems (Yuan et al., 2012). A system is
a group of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole system dynamics modeling (Cheng, 2012). It was
originated by Professor Jay W. Forrester of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the mid-1950s (Forrester, 1987). It has
been widely used in different applications for understanding different economic, social, business, agricultural, and ecological systems.
It deals with internal feedback loops and time delay that affect the
behavior of the entire system. It has the ability to understand the
relation between the behavior of system over time and its underlying structure and decision rule. Simulation helps explore what-if
scenarios and policy tests in something that is like a laboratory setting, which causes condence in particular strategies and policies to
increase (Richardson and Otto, 2008). As a result, system dynamics is often used as a methodology for improving the soundness
and effectiveness of the decision-making process. It has become a
popular technique for modeling construction project management
(Hao et al., 2007).
3. System dynamics applications in CDW
A big number of research works have utilized system dynamics modeling in waste management. Wager and Hilty (2002) have
developed system dynamics model for waste management to support the assessment of the ow of materials, energy and costs
of regional waste management with regard to their ecological
and economic impacts. Chaerul et al. (2008) studied hospital
waste management using system dynamics approach to capture
its dynamic nature. The behavior of the waste management system depends on several factors including the changing nature of
various systemic factors and the feedback generated by a dynamic
and continuous interaction. Sliwa (1994) conducted a study on
municipal solid waste management in Pueblo using the system
dynamics approach. The study has tried to bridge the gap between
traditional approaches so as to solve the public administration
problems. Lang et al. (2002) developed a systematic methodology
for natural and human resources optimization for waste management to achieve sustainable development using system dynamics
modeling.
Several studies have been published for CDW management
(Yuan, 2012; Hao et al., 2007; Rong, 2004; Hsiao et al., 2002;
Zhao et al., 2011; Yuan et al., 2011). Yuan (2012) carried out a
quantitative study to evaluate the social performance on construction waste management using system dynamics. Many indicators
have been used to assess the social impacts of CDW. Hao et al.

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

43

4.1. Problem identication

1) Problem
Identification

5) Policy
Formulation

4) Model
Validation

2) Dynamic
Hypothesis

3) Model formulation

Fig. 1. System dynamics model procedure for CDW.

(2007) conducted a study on managing construction and demolition waste. The study showed that system dynamics is able to
interrelate the sub-systems and provide better understanding of
the dynamic interactions and interdependencies of the key areas of
the CDW management process. Rong (2004) used system dynamics approach and analytical hierarchy processing an effort to model
sustainable waste management techniques. Hsiao et al. (2002) conducted a study on simulating materials ow of concrete waste
from construction and demolition wastes. Also, Zhao et al. (2011)
developed a study using system dynamics computer model to evaluate alternatives in CDW recycling centers under different policy
and economic environments. Yuan et al. (2011) developed system
dynamics model for analyzing the cost-benet for CDW management. An economic instrument is developed as an effective tool
for encouraging or forcing contractors to conduct environmentally
friendly construction practices. Previous studies did not take into
account the need for assessment of economic and environmental
effects of CDW disposal as two important aspects of sustainability.
Also, they did not model the different pollutant emissions resulting
from disposal in landlls throughout their lifetime from a dynamic
point of view.
To simulate a system dynamics model, computer support is
needed. There are several existing computer packages such as
DYNAMO, IThink/STELLA, Matlab, Powersim and Vensim. STELLA
is one of the most popular system dynamics software packages
which are an effective simulation tool for system dynamics modeling released by High Performance Systems Inc. (HPS, 1997). This
software was selected for supporting the analysis in this study.
The basic building blocks of STELLA are stock; ow; converter;
and connector. A stock variable (represented by rectangles) is a
noun and represents something that accumulates. A ow (represented by valves) is an activity that changes the magnitude of a
stock by lling and draining. The converter (represented by circle)
can be used to modify an activity for its ability to dene external
inputs to the model. The connector (represented by simple arrow)
is able to connect model elements (Shiet and Shiet, 2006; Zhao
et al., 2011).
4. Development of system dynamics model
The objective of this research is to provide a dynamic model
by conducting an empirical study using system dynamics methodology to capture the dynamic nature of two alternatives for CDW
management which are waste recycling and disposal. The proposed
model is able to simulate the long-term behavior of each alternative in two main aspects of cost and environmental impacts. To
achieve this objective, a simulation model is developed by following the procedure shown in Fig. 1. The description of the proposed
procedure is detailed in below sub-sections.

To simulate the long-term impacts of CDW recycling and landlling on the aspects of cost and environment, all essential variables
that affect the system are considered. The variables rates used in the
model have been collected from various published literature and
through surveying the Egyptian market. The time horizon should
be long enough to show the impact of CDW recycling and disposal
and describe its symptoms. Therefore, it should extend far back in
history. Also, it should extend far enough into the future to capture
the delayed and indirect effect of potential policies (Sterman 2000).
Rong (2004) recommended the service life of the waste treatment/disposal facility that is usually 2030 years. Therefore, the
time horizon in the proposed system dynamics model is selected
to be 20 years (i.e., from 2004 to 2024).

4.2. Dynamic hypothesis

Evaluating economic and environmental impacts of CDW management alternatives on the long-run requires examining the major
variables effect on the assessment. This is done by using a tool
that is capable of visualizing relationships of variables and feedback effects of the system. The structure of the system dynamics
model is portrayed by a causal loop diagram, which is formulated
by VENSIM software as shown in Fig. 2. The developed causal loop
diagram comprises eight loops (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8)
in total; all loops are reinforcing (positive loops). The interactions
among different loops decide the systems nal behavior.
Feedback loop R1 shows the relationship between CDW
recycling and energy consumption saving where CDW recycling
leads to an increase in energy consumption savings. On the other
hand, when savings in energy consumption from recycling increase,
it leads to conduct more recycling. This relationship, as a natural
result of the recycling process, reduces the need for the upstream
phase. When using recycled materials, this replaces part of the
inputs that would be produced from raw material, skipping some
stages of the production chain or replaces some stages which lead
to less energy-consumption (Pimenteira et al., 2004).
Feedback loop R2 shows that the recycling process helps in
reducing emissions polluting the air ambient (e.g. NOX, SO2, PM,
and CO emissions) which leads to better human health. As a result,
all emissions polluting the air will be reduced when more recycling
takes place instead of landlling, where the total reductions in
emissions is equal to the avoided emissions from landlling plus
the avoided emissions from reducing the need for the upstream
phase. Energy savings are often the driving force behind emissions
savings (Choate et al., 2005). Consequently, the amount of recycled
waste will be increased due to the total reduction in pollutants
emissions.
By referring to feedback loop R3, it can be observed that the
amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions is reduced by
increasing recycling. This in turn leads to reducing the chance of
causing global warming potential. Consequently, the amount of
recycled waste will be increased due to the reduction in the GWP
phenomenon. The causal loop relationships in loop 4 are the same
as in loop R2; the only difference is the effect of GHGs emissions
instead of emissions polluting the air. Some of the causal loop relationships in loop R5 are the same as in loop R4; the difference
is that the total reduction in emissions from landlls leads to an
increase in the total saved damage cost through mitigating the
effect of these emissions on environment, air ambient, as well as
they eliminate the negative effect on human health. This has positive effects on economic gains. Consequently, if economic gains are
high, then, contractors are keen to have incentives of having more
recycling (Yuan et al., 2011). Economic instrument is perceived as

44

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

Waste Generation
Per Capita

Percentage of
C&D Waste that
Not Collected

+
-

+
Waste
Collection
+
+
Uncollected waste
+
Population
Census

+
+
C&D Waste
Generation

Occupation Of
Landfill Space
+

+
Waste Disposal +

Existing landfill
capacity

Emissions polluting
the air

+
Extra Funds for
New Landfills

Total Damage Costs

From Emissions of
Landfills
+
+

Energy
consumption saving +
+
Greenhouse gas
emissions
-

Unit landfill
Charge

-Total Reductions in
Emissions By Recycling

R1
R3

Population
Growth Rate

+
Damage Costs Of
Emissions
+

R4

+
Recycling Ratio
Unit Environmental
cost due to
uncollected waste

Private Costs Of
Unit Landfills

Collection
Rate

Global warming

R2

R5

+
ECONOMIC
GAINS

R6

Waste Recycling

R8

Total Cost from

disposal &
uncollected waste
R7

Unit Damage
Cost Of Air
Emissions

Total damage cost

Avoided By Recycling

Damage Costs from

GHG Emissions
+

+
+ Environmental Cost due
to Uncollected Waste

Unit Damage
Cost of GHG
Emissions.

Fig. 2. Causal loop structure of the proposed model.

an effective tool for encouraging or forcing contractors to adopt

environmentally friendly construction practices.
Some of the causal loop relationships in loop 6 are the same as
in loop R5; the only difference is the effect of emissions polluting
the air, not the effect of GHGs emissions. In feedback loop R7; it can
be observed that conducting more recycling for CWD leads to the
reduction of the emissions polluting the air. The total damage costs
from emissions of landlls are consequently reduced since CDW in
landll is less. Also, the total costs from disposal and uncollected
waste are reduced. As a result, the economic gains will be increased
by conducting more recycling and high economic gains will lead to
further recycling. Feedback loop R8 is the same loop R7 except that
the effect of emissions polluting the air is replaced by the effect of
GHGs emissions.
4.3. Model formulation
Based on the causal loop diagram, all the key variables that
affect the choice of CDW management techniques alternatives are
identied. The conceptual causal loop diagram is converted to a
quantitative model to facilitate the running of the model. To this
end, the causal loop diagram is converted into a stock-ow diagram
using STELLA software. Fig. 3 depicts stock-ow diagram of the
model. Detailed descriptions of the model variables are included
in Appendix 1.
4.4. Model validation
Building condence in the model is achieved through conducting some tests after identifying and dening all variables and
functions (Sterman 2000). This ensures the accuracy of the model
for reecting the real-world in a meaningful way (Richardson and
Pugh, 1981). Qudrat-Ullah and Seong (2010) listed ve tests that
are used for structural validation of a system dynamics model. The

validation tests are conducted in the developed model as described

below.
4.4.1. Boundary-adequacy test
This test is concerned with whether the level of detailed variables contained in the model is appropriate to the research purpose
or not. Meanwhile, it assures that the model includes all relevant structure relationships and parameters by examining all the
variables that have been embodied in stock-ow diagram. After
examining all variables in the system dynamics model, it was found
that each of these variables is fundamental for research purpose
so as to evaluate the environmental and economic performances
associated with the disposal and recycle of CDW.
4.4.2. Structure verication test
The purpose of this test is to check whether the model structure is consistent with relevant descriptive knowledge of the
system being modeled. The structural verication is important
in the overall validation process (Qudrat-Ullah and Seong, 2010).
The information included in the structure and all cause-and-effect
chains of the causal loop diagram (shown in Fig. 2) is based on various literatures in this domain. As such, the structure of that model
is logical and closely represent the real life system.
4.4.3. Dimension consistency test
This test ensures the consistency of variable dimensions of each
mathematical equation in the model. STELLA software has the possibility of dimension checking after dening the measurement units
of all the variables. Consequently, the model has been validated
for dimensional consistency. The variable AAPMERE (shown in
Fig. 4), for instance, is dened using Eq. (1):
AAPMERE (t) = AAPMERE (t dt) + (APMERE) dt

(1)

This equation is used to calculate the total avoided PM Emissions through construction and demolition waste recycling. It is

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

45

Fig. 3. A stock-ow diagram for assessing the economic and environmental impacts of CDW.

Equ

AAPMERE (t)

AAPMERE (t - dt)

Dim

Ton

Ton

(APMERE) * dt

Ton* Ton/Ton

Fig. 4. Dimension consistency test on one of the model variables.

Table 1
Population growth rate in Egypt 20002025 (Awad and Zohary, 2005).
Period

20002005

20052010

20102015

20152020

20202025

Population growth rate (%)

1.91

1.83

1.67

1.46

1.28

worth noting that the variable dimensions on the left-hand side are
consistent with the variables dimensions on the right-hand side.
4.4.4. Parameter verication test
The purpose of this test is to check whether the parameters in
the model correspond conceptually and numerically to real life. The
parameter values of the proposed model are taken from real cases
conducted in literature. For illustration, Tables 1 and 2 include some
of the parameters, their values and the source.
4.4.5. Extreme conditions test
This test examines the behavior of the model by assigning
extreme values for the model variables. Extreme values for specic
variables are compared with the reference behavior of the principled model. To clarify the purpose of the test, the variable ULC (Unit
Landlling Charge) is taken as an example for the test. The impact
of ULC on REW (the quantity of recycled from CDW) over time is
examined by changing the value of ULC from L.E. 6.11 ($0.88) to L.E.
58 ($8.32) and monitoring how the value of REW inuences model
behavior. The ndings show that in case of higher landll charge,

contractors incentive increases to conduct more CDW recycling

which increases REW compared to the initial value of ULC (see
Fig. 5a). In case of low unit landll charge (L.E.6.11), most wastes
are disposed either legally or illegally. This result reects the natural attitude of contractors, where costs represent high priority with
the absence of incentives for recycling and/or contract clauses that
force contractors to recycle CDW.
Table 2
Model variables and their respective values.
Model variables

Values

Source

NOX emissions from recycling 1 ton from CDW

GWP (CO2 eq) emissions from recycling 1 ton
from CDW
Energy used for recycling 1 ton from CDW
GWP emissions from processing 1 ton of CDW
in a Landll
Energy used for Processing 1 ton of CDW in a
landll
Unit land losses from landlls space by CDW
landlling

2 ton
600 Ibs

Levis
(2008)

9000 kBtu
200 Ibs
600 kBtu
0.6 M3 /ton

F.I.R. (2005)

46

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

4.50E+07

5.00E+07

4.00E+07

Unit Landlling Charge (ULC)=6.11

4.50E+07

3.50E+07

Unit Landlling Charge (ULC)=58

4.00E+07
3.50E+07

Tons

3.00E+07

Tons

2.50E+07
2.00E+07

2.50E+07

1.50E+07

1.00E+07

1.00E+07

5.00E+06

5.00E+06
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years

Years

b) Quantities of recycled, landfilled and uncollected CDW over simulation time

a) Unit landfilling charge impact on the quantity of recycled from CDW

4.50E+07

3.50E+07
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
5.00E+06

2.00E+12
Kilo Brish Thermal Units (KBTU)

Released GHGs Emissions from Landlls for the same

quanty of waste recycled (RGHGELF)
Overall Avoided GHGs Emissions by CDW Recycling
(OAGHGER)

4.00E+07

Tons CO2eq

3.00E+07

2.00E+07

1.50E+07

-5.00E+06

Recycled CDW (REW)

Disposed CDW in Landll (DWLF)
Uncollected CDW (UCOW)

1.80E+12

Saved Energy from Avoiding Landlling (SEALF)

1.60E+12

Overall Saved Energy by Recycling (OSERE)

1.40E+12
1.20E+12
1.00E+12
8.00E+11
6.00E+11
4.00E+11
2.00E+11
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years
d)

c) Effect of recycling and landfills on global warming potential

ed Waste (TCMDDUCOW)

3.50E+12

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Amount of Consumed Energy and Saved Energy over simulation time

1.20E+14

Total Costs incurred to Migate the Damage from

Disposal and Uncollect

3.00E+12

Years

Total Benets of CDW Recycling (TBRE)

1.00E+14

2.50E+12

8.00E+13

L.E.

L.E.

2.00E+12
1.50E+12

6.00E+13
4.00E+13

1.00E+12

2.00E+13

5.00E+11
0.00E+00

0.00E+00
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years

e) Economic burden from waste disposal over simulation time

f) Economic benefits of waste recycling

Fig. 5. System dynamics model outputs.

5. Results and discussion

After conducting the validation tests, the model is simulated
over a total period of 20 years, which corresponds to the total
life time of CDW landlls. In case of enforcement methodology
to benet from construction and demolition waste by recycling
instead of disposal (without implementing government policies),
the proportion of recycled materials is inuenced by contractors
perceptions where cost has higher priority than environment. Thus,
the percentage of recycled material is inuenced by the unit landll
charge. Fig. 5b depicts the projection of the amount of CDW that is:
(1) disposed in landlls; (2) uncollected; and (3) recycled. It should
be noted that the amount of waste recycled (REW) in the rst
year is only 20% of the total collected waste that is approximately
32 thousand ton and over the simulated time (20 years). A total
of 12.3 million ton of materials will be recycled from a huge
amount of CDW that is generated annually (4.5 million tons/year).
This quantity is considered very little compared to the quantities
dumped in landlls annually and uncollected wastes. The total
disposed waste in landlls (DWLF) over a lifetime is 49.2 million

ton and this represents the largest amount of waste, which leads to
diminishing landll space rapidly and causes ambient air pollution
that is so dangerous to human health. The amount of uncollected wastes (UCOW) is 35.2 million ton over a simulation time
which is much greater than the amount of recycled wastes. This is
attributed to the absence of enforcing strict laws and regulations
that prevent illegal dumping for the preservation the environment.
Fig. 5c depicts the comparison between the simulation of the
effect of GHGs emissions released from landlls and the impact of
the recycling process on global warming potential (GWP). The gure shows the effect of disposed waste on GWP through the amount
of GHGs emissions (CO2 eq) released from landlls (RGHGELF)
and the effect of the recycling process by estimating the overall avoided GHGs emissions by CDW Recycling (OAGHGER) that
is equal to the total avoided emissions from landlling and the
avoided emissions from eliminating the need for the upstream
phase. It should be noted that GHGs emissions (CO2 eq) released
from landlls increases signicantly during its operations and even
after closure. This leads to an increase in GWP which increases

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

emissions in the atmosphere from 228.52 ton in the rst run on

simulation to 10.45 million ton over 20 years. In contrast, in waste
recycling processes, the concentration of GHGs emissions gradually
decreases (avoided emissions increase) over time and this leads
to a reduction in the chance of global warming from 914 ton in
rst year of simulation to 41.8 million ton at the end of simulation
(2024).
Fig. 5d shows the effect of disposed waste in landlls and
recycling process in energy consumption. The relationship between
SEALF (Saved Energy from Avoiding LandFills) and the lifetime of
landlls is depicted in the gure. It shows that the energy consumption by landlling for the same recycled quantity ranges from
1.37 million KBTU (Kilo British Thermal Units) to 62.69 billion KBTU
at the end of the simulation run. These huge losses from energy
consumption can be maintained by conducting a recycling process
on CDW. The results from simulation indicate that by conducting
recycling on the same quantity, OSERE (Overall Saved Energy due
to Recycling) ranges from 21.94 million KBTU to 1003 billion KBTU.
It is a fact that recycling reduces the need for the upstream phase.
Also, when materials are recycled, this replaces part of the inputs
that would be produced from raw material, skipping some stages
of the production chain or replacing some stages which lead to less
energy-consumption.
Fig. 5e depicts the impact of not handling the CDW in an
appropriate manner on the economy. A large amount of money
will be incurred by the government to: (1) eliminate the damage
that results from landlls emissions whether in air ambient or on
human health; (2) reduce the dangers of wastes that are not collected for the surrounding environment and human health; and
(3) construct new landlls or dumpsites to accommodate extra
quantities of CDW. The unit cost to construct a small landlls
is approximately 1154 L.E./m3 (165.58 $/m3 ) and this accommodates less than 10,000 ton/year. A medium landll costs 692 L.E./m3
(99.29 $/m3 ) and this accommodates from 10,000 to 100,000 ton
per year. As for a large landll, it costs 462 L.E./m3 (66.29 $/m3 )
and accommodates more than 100,000 ton/year (BDA Group, 2009).
The result of having limited data relevant to the total landlls
capacity in Egypt is that the case considers the total occupied
capacity from Landlls to the end of 2024 is equal to the current capacity of landlls. The total cost incurred from the state
to mitigate the damage resulting from disposal and uncollected
waste (TCMDDUCOW) increases signicantly each year from L.E.
79.6 million ($11.42 million) to L.E. 3322.3 billion ($476.69 billion)
at the end of the simulation run (i.e., considering a time span of
20 years).
Fig. 5f displays the effect of activating recycling on the states
economics by estimating TBRE (total benets of CDW recycling).
Recycling twenty percent from the total waste generated annually
would reduce costs (which are paid to reduce the impact of total
emissions under study due to landlling) of L.E. 2.4 billion ($344.36
million) which will be L.E. 112,636.8 billion ($16,161.35 billion) 20
years later.
The last step in the procedure of the simulation model development is policy formation after conducting the rst four steps
described earlier (problem identication, dynamic hypothesis,
model formulation, and model validation). Some recommendations

47

should be considered to encourage recycling of CDW in Egypt. These

recommendations are:
The establishment of recycling centers for construction and
demolition wastes.
Developing incentive programs to encourage contractors to recycle their wastes.
Activating strict regulations and laws to prevent illegal dumping.
Forcing contractors to conduct a comprehensive system for managing waste in any construction/demolition project under the
supervision of the authorities and impose nes in case of not
complying with the system.
6. Conclusions
Construction and demolition wastes represent a considerable
amount that inuences sustainable development aspects with
respect to environmental, economic, and social concerns. This
paper has presented some developments in a system dynamics
model to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts, taking into account two alternatives: recycled wastes and disposed
wastes. This research is an empirical study that uses a system
dynamics methodology of the CDW management sector by developing a dynamic model capable of studying the behavior of landll
process on both the short and long run and its impacts on the environment and economy. It helps the involved CDW management to
examine the interaction among variables affecting of the impacts of
landll and recycling process as an alternative for disposal waste
on two major aspects of sustainability, namely the environment
and economy. These assessments take into account the different
pollutant emissions resulting from disposal in landlls throughout
their lifetime, emissions avoided by recycling, and the impact of
uncollected waste. The major variables affecting the environmental and economic assessment are identied and the relationships
among these variables are described through a causal loop diagram.
The interaction among variables is examined through STELLA software. The results from simulation show that waste disposal is not
a viable solution to manage CDW. Therefore, regulations should be
activated to promote recycling as an alternative for the disposal of
CDW. If recycling is conducted on the same quantity of the disposed
material in landlls would offer more benets for environmental
and economic aspects.
As for the case of Egypt, it would be a substitution for primary
raw materials which are estimated to be 12.3 million ton by 2024.
This leads to the preservation of natural resources and limited
landlls space. Also, recycling would reduce the costs required to
mitigate air pollution for L.E. 112,636.8 billion ($16,161.35 billion)
over 20 years of simulation time. The simulation results also proved
the advantages of recycling technique: (a) it conserves the energy
needed for disposing wastes and the upstream; (b) it conserves
landlls space; (c) it reduces emissions of GHGs; and (d) it reduces
the costs incurred to mitigate air pollution. The research proves
that the cost incurred to reduce the dangers to the environment
and human health due to uncollected waste and waste landlling is
extremely high. Therefore, recycling of CDW ensures a sustainable
environment and economy.

48

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

Appendix 1.
Model variables description
No.

Abbreviation

Variable name

Unit

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

AACOERE
AAGHGERE
AANOXEWRE
AAPMERE
AASO2ERE
ACOERRE
ACOERE
AECLF
AGHGEPLF
AGHGERE
ANOXEWRE
ANOXERRE
APMERE
APMERRE
ASERE
ASO2ERRE
ASO2ERE
CLF
COERAD
COW
COELF
COERLF
DWLF
ECUCOW
EFCNLF
IERLF
ELCNLF
ESADLF
ESRE
ESRRE
GHGSER
GW
GWP
GHGERAD
GHGELF
GHGEIR
IECEY
IRUPCLF
IUPCLF
LLWLF
NOXELF
NOXERLF
NOXERAD
OACOER
OAGHGER
OANOXERE
OAPMER
OASO2ERE
OSERE
PCE
PGR
PG
PMELF
PMERLF
PMERAD
PWNC
PWRE
PWDL
RCOELF
REW
RGHGELF
RNOXELF
RPMELF
RSO2ELF
SEALF
SO2ELF
SO2RLF
SO2ERAD
TBRE
TCMDDUCOW
TRCOELF
TDCLFE
TDCGHGE

Accumulated Avoided CO Emission by Recycling

Accumulated Avoided GHGs Emissions by C&D WASTE Recycling
Accumulated Avoided NOX Emission from C&D Waste Recycling
Accumulated Avoided PM Emissions by Recycling
Accumulated Avoided SO2 Emission by Recycling
Avoided CO Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling
Avoided CO Emissions by CDW Recycling
Accumulated Energy Consumption by Landlling
Accumulated Produced GHGs (CO2 eq) Emissions by landlling
Avoided GHGs Emissions from CDW Recycling
Avoided NOX Emissions by CDW Recycling
Avoided NOX Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling
Avoided PM Emissions by CDW Recycling
Avoided PM Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling
Accumulated Saved Energy from CDW Recycling
Avoided SO2 Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling
Avoided SO2 Emissions by CDW Recycling
Capacity of Landlls
CO Emissions Reducing from Avoided Disposal
Collected CDW
CO Emissions by landlling
Co Emissions Rate from Landlls
Disposed CDW in Landlls
Environmental Cost due to Uncollected Waste
Extra Funds for the Construction of New Landlls to accommodate excess CDW
Increased Energy Rate from Landlling
Economic Losses from Construction New landlls
Energy Saving from Avoiding Disposal CDW in landlls
Energy Saving of CDW Recycling
Energy Saving Rate by CDW Recycling
GHGs Saved Emissions Rate
Generated Waste
Global Warming Potential
GHGs Emissions Reducing from Avoiding Disposal
GHGs Emissions from Landlling
GHGs Emissions Increasing Rate
Increasing Energy Consumption Each Year from Landlls
Increasing Rate of Unit private Cost of Landlls
Increasing Unit Private Cost of Landlls
Land losses from waste landlled
NOX Emissions by landlling
NOX Emissions Rate from landlls
NOX Emissions Reducing from Avoided Disposal
Overall Avoided CO Emissions by CDW Recycling
Overall Avoided GHGs Emissions by CDW Recycling
Overall Avoided NOX Emissions by CDW Recycling
Overall Avoided PM Emissions by CDW Recycling
Overall Avoided SO2 Emissions by CDW Recycling
Overall Saved Energy by CDW Recycling
Population Census in Egypt (2004)
Population Growth Rate
Population Growth
PM Emissions from landlling
PM Emissions Rate from Landlls
PM Emissions Reducing from Avoided Disposal
Percentage of CDW that Not Collected
Percentage of CDW Recycling
Percentage of CDW disposed in Landlls
Released CO Emissions from Landlls for the same quantity of waste recycled
Recycled CDW
Released GHGs Emissions from Landlls for the same quantity of waste recycled
Released NOX Emissions from Landlls for the same quantity of waste recycled
Released PM Emissions from Landlls for the same quantity of waste recycled
Released SO2 Emissions from Landlls for the same quantity of waste recycled
Saved Energy from Avoiding Landlling
SO2 Emissions from Landlling
SO2 Emissions Rate from Landlls
SO2 Emissions Reduced from Avoiding Disposal
Total Benets of CDW Recycling
Total Costs Incurred to Mitigate the Damage from Waste Disposal and Uncollected Waste
Total Released CO Emissions from landlls
Total Damage costs from Landlls Emissions
Total Damage cost of GHGs (CO2 eq) Emissions

Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton/ton
Ton/year
KBTU
Ton
Ton/year
Ton/year
Ton/ton
Ton/year
Ton/ton
KBTU
Ton/ton
Ton/year
M3
Ton/year
Ton
Ton/year
Ton/ton
Ton
L.E.
L.E.
KBTU/ton
L.E.
KBTU/year
KBTU/year
KBTU/ton
Ton/ton
Ton
Ton
Ton/year
Ton/year
Ton/ton
KBTU/year
%
L.E./year
M3 /year
Ton/year
Ton/ton
Ton/year
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
KBTU
Capita
/year
Capita/year
Ton/year
Ton/ton
Ton/year
/year
%
%
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton/year
Ton/ton
Ton
L.E.
L.E.
Ton
L.E.
L.E.

M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 4149

49

No.

Abbreviation

Variable name

Unit

74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

TDCCOE
TDCPM E
TDCNOXE
TDCSO2E
TRNOXELF
TOCWLF
TRPMELF
TRSO2ELF
UCOW
UDCNOXE
UDCSO2E
UDCCOE
UDCGHGE
UECUCOW
ULC
ULLF
UPCLF
WCOR
WCO
WCOR
WGPC
WG
WNC
WRE
WTLF

Total Damage Cost of CO Emissions

Total Damage Cost of PM Emissions
Total Damage Cost of NOX Emissions
Total Damage Cost of SO2 Emissions
Total Released NOX Emissions from landlls
Total Occupied Capacity from C&D waste Landlls
Total Released PM Emissions from Landlls
Total Released SO2 Emissions from Landlls
Uncollected CDW
Unit Damage Cost of NOX Emissions
Unit Damage Cost of SO2 Emissions
Unit Damage Cost of CO Emissions
Unit Damage cost of GHGs Emissions
Unit Environmental Cost due to Uncollected CDW
Unit Landlling Charge
Unit Land losses from landlls
Unit Private Costs of Landlls
Rate of CDW Collecting
CDW Collecting
Rate of CDW Collecting
Waste Generation per capita
Waste Generating
CDW that is Not Collected
CDW Recycling
CDW Transported to Landlls

L.E.
L.E.
L.E.
L.E.
Ton
M3
Ton
Ton
Ton
L.E/ton
L.E./ton
L.E./ton
L.E./ton
L.E./ton
L.E./ton
M3 /ton
L.E./M3
Ton/year
Ton/year
/year
Ton/capita/year
Ton/year
Ton/year
Ton/year
Ton/year

KBTU is one thousand of British thermal units.

References
American lung Association of California. Air Quality and Health Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Warming [Internet]; 2004 June [cited 2012
September 1[, Available from: http://www.californialung.org
Awad A, Zohary A. The end of Egypt population growth in the 21st century: challenges and aspirations. In: The 35th annual conference on population and
development issues current situation & aspirations; 2022 December; 2005.
p. 3.
BDA Group Economics and Environment. The full cost of landll disposal in Australia.
Australia: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; 2009
July. p. 178.
Chaerul M, Tanaka M, Shekdar AV. A system dynamics approach for hospital waste
management. Waste Management 2008;28(2):4429.
Cheng Y. Thoughts on reconstruction of nancial control system in Chinese listed
companies in perspective of systems theory. International Journal of Business
Administration: Sciedu Press 2012;3(4):6771.
Choate A, Pederson L, Scharfenberg J, Ferland H. Waste management and energy
savings: benets by the numbers [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2005 September 4 [cited 2012 August 30], Available from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Energy
%20Savings.pdf
Coelho A, de Brito J. Economic viability analysis of a construction and demolition
waste recycling plant in Portugal Part I: location, materials, technology and
economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 2013a;39:33852.
Coelho A, de Brito J. Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste
recycling plant in Portugal Part II: environmental sensitivity analysis. Waste
Management 2013b;33:14761.
F.I.R. Information document on the effects of C&DW recycling. Europe: DGEnvironment; 2005.
Forrester JW. Lessons from System Dynamics Modeling. System Dynamics Review
1987;3(2):13649.
Hao JL, Hills MJ, Huang T. A simulation model using system dynamic method for
construction and demolition waste management in Hong Kong. Construction
Innovation: Information, Process, Management 2007;7(1):721.
HPS (High Performance Systems, Inc. ). Ithink Technical Documentation. High Performance Systems, Inc; 1997.
Hsiao TY, Huang YT, Yu YH, Wernick IK. Modeling materials ow of waste concrete from construction and demolition wastes in Taiwan. Resources Policy
2002;28(1/2):3947.
Lang DJ, Binder C, Stubli B, Schleiss K, Scholz RW. A systemic approach to optimise
waste management using system dynamics as an analytical tool the case of
bio-waste. In: European Conference: The future of waste management; 2002.
Levis J. A Life-Cycle Analysis of Alternatives for the Management of Waste HotMix Asphalt, Commercial Food Waste, and Construction and Demolition Waste.
Master thesis. Raleigh, North Carolina, US: North Carolina State University; 2008.

Liyin S, Hong Y, Grifth A. Improving environmental performance by means of

empowerment of contractors. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 2006;17(3):24257.
Pimenteira CAP, Pereira AS, Oliveira LB, Rosa LP, Reis MM, Henriques RM. Energy
conservation and CO2 emission reductions due to recycling in Brazil. Waste
Management 2004;24:88997.
Qudrat-Ullah H, Seong BS. How to do structural validity of a system dynamics
type simulation model: the case of an energy policy model. Energy Policy
2010;38(5):221624.
Richardson GP, Otto P. Application of system dynamics in marketing: editorial. Journal of Business Research 2008;61(11):1099101.
Richardson GP, Pugh AL. Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO.
Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press; 1981.
Rong L. Using System Dynamics in Decision Support for Sustainable Waste
Management. Master thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore;
2004.
Roussat N, Dujet C, Mhu J. Choosing a sustainable demolition waste management strategy using multicriteria decision analysis. Waste Management
2009;29(1):1220.
Shiet AB, Shiet GW. System Dynamics Tool: STELLA Version 9 Tutorial 1, Introduction to computational science: modeling and simulation for the sciences.
Princeton University Press; 2006. p. 120.
Sliwa k. Solid Waste Management in Puebla. A system Dynamic Approach. In:
International System Dynamic Conference. Social and Public Policy; 1994.
p. 11725.
Sterman JD. Business dynamics system thinking and modeling for a complex world,
vol. 3. London: McGraw-Hill; 2000. p. 83133.
Wager P, Hilty LM. A simulation system for waste management from system
dynamics modeling to decision support. In: Rizzoli AE, Jakeman AJ, editors.
Proc. iEMSs 2002, integrated assessment and decision support, Lugano; 2002. p.
1749.
Yuan H. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Management 2012;32(3):121828.
Yuan HP, Shen LY, Hao JL, Lu WS. A model for cost-benet analysis of construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(6):60412.
Yuan H, Chini AR, Lu Y, Shen L. A dynamic model for assessing the effect of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste
Management 2012;32(3):52131.
Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter VS. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the
recycling of construction and demolition waste in China the case of Chongqing.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;54(6):37789.
Zhao W, Ren H, Rotter VS. A system dynamics model for evaluating the alternative of type in construction and demolition waste recycling center the
case of Chongqing: China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(11):
93344.